The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC. No. '10007 of 2022, On the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in CC. No. 1 0007 of 2022, On the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p SREE RAMYA, Advocate for the Petrtioner and SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REDDy, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRosEcuroR on beharf of the Respondent No.'r and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TI{E HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SIJJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3498 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is l-rled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No. 10007 of 2O22 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 arrd 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that 04 .O3.2O2I a complaint was received from respondent No.2 stating that her marriage rvith petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 29.04.2018 at Sitara Grand Hotel, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, as per Hindu customs. The marriage was arranged by her mother-in-1aw's brother, Sri P. Gopaiah. Her husband, employed as a Customer Executive at ICICI Bank, Miyapur Branch, along with his parents, allegedty demanded and received dowry of Rs.4,0O,000/- in cash, two tolas of gold during engagement, and an additional three tolas for her husband ancl ten tolas 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3498 of2025 for herself during the marriage, along with household articles worth Rs.3,00,OOO/-, a bike worth Rs.l,50,OOO/-, arrd marriage expenses. of Rs,15,00pOOl-. After marriage, she moved into her in-laws' house at Allwyn Colony, KPHB, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, where she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband, in-laws, and co- sister, who treated her like a maid and constantly demanded more dowry. She was also pressured to bring Rs.2,O0,00O/- twice from her parents and was later forced to transfer her parental properties.

3. When she stopped responding to their demands, the harassment intensified, and they even spread rumors that she was mentally ill. Thereafter, she was pregnant, her in-laws and husband forced her to abort the child and denied her medical care. When her mother came to take her for a check- up, she was threatened not to return. Her mother eventually took her to her parental home, where she delivered a premature baby boy via emirgency C-section on 09.06.2019. Despite being informed, her husband and his family did not visit. A complaint was lodged at SR Nagar Police Station, following which they visited for the chitd's 2lst-day ceremony SKS,J crt P.!{o.3498 of 2025 but later blocked all communication. Another complaint was made in September 2O2O, leadiog to counseling at BHAROSA, where the husband's inconsistent behavior ir-rdicated his unwillingness to reunite with her despite havlng zr child.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and aftr:r completion of investigation, they liled charge sheet vide C.C.No.10007 of 2022 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners hled the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Smt. P. Sree Ramya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State. Though notice sen'ed upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no specilic or credible allegations against the p,:111[6n615, SKS,.r Crl.P.No.3498 of 2O25 and the complaint iacks the basic ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He further submilred that the complaint appears to have been filed only to harass the petitioners, and the proceedings are being misused and that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2018, but the complaint was lodged belatedly in the year 2O21 without arry proper explanation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners maintain a good reputation and have been falsely implicated due to influence by the de facto complainant and that petitioner No.2 even advised the couple to live peacefully. He further contended that the de facto complainant herself admitted leaving the matrimonial home during pregnancy and has since filed other cases, including a divorce petition which ended in a decree of divorce on 2O.O2.2O24. As the parties are now living separately without any relationship, continuation of the present criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law, and hence the proceedings are iiable to be quashed. 5 SKS,J Crl.P 0.3498 of 2025

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Publir: Prosecutor submitted that the matter is at the stage of trial and there are serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage quashing of proceedings against them do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the materral available on record, it appears that the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No. 1 was solemnized on

29.O4.2018, and disputes arose thereafter, ieading to allegations of mental and physical harassment, dowry demands, and ill-treatment by accused No. 1. Tl-re allegations against accused No. 1 are speciltc and pertain to acts of cruelty and dowry harassment within the matrimonial home, and therefore, involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Horveve r, with respect to petitioner No.2, it appears that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature, and no specilic overt act has been attributed to her. 6 SKS,J Crl.P.lIo.3498 of 2025 There is no clear material to show her continuous presence in the matrimonial household or direct involvement in the alleged acts. The Hon'ble Sttpieme Court:in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhaud t , held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives who are not residing with the coupie and against whom no specific ailegations are made should not be roped in casually, as it amounts to abuse of criminal process. 1 1. In the present case, even assuming the allegations to be true, the role of petitioner No.2 does not prima facie disclose commission of any offence, and continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against accused No. 1 shall continue, while the proceedings against petitioner No.2 are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed-in-part and the proceedings against petitioner No.2 in C.C.No. 1OOO7 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby ' 1zoro1 z scc ooz 7 SKS,J Crl l'.No.3498 of 2()25 quashed. Further, the trial Court is directed to proceed further against Petitioner No' 1' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall also stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR (,\,,\.*/- //TRUE COPY' SE TION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At Nampally Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad District 3. One CC to SRI P SREE RAMYA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/GH A,/u HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712425 ORDER CRLP.No.3498 of 2025 , : el. .: . r .}- ,,., i. \ \. -l ?r 0[T 2[25 k P,1l a . g /r 6 // c ALLOWING THE CRiMINAL PETITION IN PART